MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned 11 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned 11 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned 11 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned 11 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from

SABRAS INVESTMENT & TRADING P.LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG, 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

142(1) and 143(2) on 9`" December 2004 and ultimately completed the assessment for the impugned 11 | P a g e ITA Nso.915 to 918/Mum/2012 & 869 to 872/Mum/2013 assessment year vide order dated 21st February 2005. Therefore, we have to examine firstly, whether there is an order of transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act, from

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs.28

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,45,300/- against accommodation entry received i.e. basis on the which assessment was reopened. In this manner, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs.28

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 143(2) and 142(1)\non various occasions, there was no\ncompliance from assessee and assessee\nneither appeared nor filed any details to\nexplain its case, Assessing Officer was\njustified in resorting to best judgment\nassessment but since Assessing Officer\nhad not given any reasons for rejection of\nbooks of account and also estimated net\nprofit on turnover

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(2A) is nothing but mere tactics to extend the period of limitation which the Courts have held as bad in law. 3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(2A) is nothing but mere tactics to extend the period of limitation which the Courts have held as bad in law. 3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(2A) is nothing but mere tactics to extend the period of limitation which the Courts have held as bad in law. 3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(2A) is nothing but mere tactics to extend the period of limitation which the Courts have held as bad in law. 3. Addition under section 68 of the Act for aggregate cash deposits and credit transactions but excluding the remote deposits. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 68